Under 2013 rules, and especially as it affects the elite men's competition.

It would be possible to preserve the concept of a code of points but assign the points in different ways that would avoid these problems, and no doubt encourage different ones.

1. A skater can win the competition in the short program, robbing the long program of any interest or purpose.

That is true.

It is also true that a skater can win from 4th or 6th or 7th place without worrying about what order the other skaters she beats finish the long program in -- if she beats the short program leader in the long program by more than the leader beat her in the short, then she wins.

The fact that former tends to happen more often than the latter indicates that the balance between points available in the short and points available in the long is not currently calibrated to make the long program worth more. I think the main reason because although there are more opportunities to make mistakes in the long program, there are also more opportunities to make up for them with other skills.

If TPTB agreed that long programs should be more do-or-die, then it would be possible within the existing general framework to change the balance of elements between short and long programs and to change the severity of the penalties for failed elements in the long.

2 The risk-reward ratio is out of balance. Risk-reward ought to go like this. If you take a big risk and it is successful, you win. If you take a big risk and you fail, you lose. You should not be able to take big risks, fail repeatedly, and win anyway.

This is primarily true for the elite senior men, under the current scale of values, because triple axels and quads still earn significant points even when failed. When successful, they earn even more points, easily mitigating any points lost to mistakes on elements that started out with lower values to begin with.

This was less true ca. 2010 and before, and it remains less true in other disciplines and at lower levels.

3. The three performance components should not be tied so firmly to skating skills. If a skater exhibits fine blade work, deep edges, excellent speed, and busy feet, then that skater deserves strong SS and TR scores. If that same performance is marred by many flaws, then that skater's artistic components should tank appropriately.

Again, it would be possible -- although difficult in practice the way judges are currently assigned and trained -- to rewrite the criteria for Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation to disregard the quality of the skating and/or to penalize visible flaws more explicitly.

Personally, I think there is plenty of room within the existing general framework for improvement in the way the criteria for these components are written and the ways judges are trained to score them.

But I would be surprised if the ISU decided to rewrite the criteria for these components so thoroughly that actual skating skill would be completely irrelevant to these components, since they are after all part of a skating contest, not an interpretation-through-movement contest that just happens to take place on an ice surface with blades on the feet.

I also think that even if the rules were rewritten to explicitly encourage judges to penalize visible errors that interfere with appreciation of the performance, that would end up including some kinds of technical weaknesses that judges find disruptive but most viewers don't pay attention to in addition to those that fans tend to dwell on long after the skater and the judges' minds have moved on.

E.g., if a skater is breaking forward at the waist with each stroke and scratching on the toepicks while skating backward, the effect may be so much like nails on a chalkboard to the judges that they would penalize heavily under PE even without falls and stumbles. Whereas nonskaters might be more bothered by a fall or two in an otherwise well-skated program and, if watching on video, might not hear the scratching at all.

I.e., I do think it would be an improvement to explicitly encourage judges to reflect errors in these components. But I don't think that people whose prime interest is to evaluate skating and people whose prime interest is to enjoy error-free programs will always have a meeting of the minds on how much it is appropriate for a skater's artistic components to tank.

As a fan of FS after a loooong career in skating of 17 years, I agree with Plushenko that Chan doesn't "deserve" a world championship with that kind of performance. However, SOMEONE has to be crowned the champion if a competition takes place, so......

I would like to agree with Plushenko with different words .... In 2013, Patrick Chan's World title was won with an UNINSPIRING performance. Dare I say, a FORGETTABLE performance?

His title in 2013 will mean as much as Vladimir Kovolev's world title in 1977 ... who you say? When you say?

EXACTLY. Chan's performance and win has inspired NO ONE, including the fans.....

E.g., if a skater is breaking forward at the waist with each stroke and scratching on the toepicks while skating backward, the effect may be so much like nails on a chalkboard to the judges that they would penalize heavily under PE even without falls and stumbles. Whereas nonskaters might be more bothered by a fall or two in an otherwise well-skated program and, if watching on video, might not hear the scratching at all.

I.e., I do think it would be an improvement to explicitly encourage judges to reflect errors in these components. But I don't think that people whose prime interest is to evaluate skating and people whose prime interest is to enjoy error-free programs will always have a meeting of the minds on how much it is appropriate for a skater's artistic components to tank.

Haha! Great example! So PE does reflect it's value under the umbrella of SS, therefore, CH and IN must be considered in similar fashion. They are probably not interpreted by the judges exactly like how they are interpreted on a stage performance.

Do you think, gkelly, with your expertized views, that the judges should give away this way of judging, and go with the more generic interpretation on PE, CH, and IN?

If the answer is no, then there is only one way to overcome this conflict - to educate the public. In the meantime, it's equally important that the public should be willing to be educated.

Haha! Great example! So PE does reflect it's value under the umbrella of SS, therefore, CH and IN must be considered in similar fashion. They are probably not interpreted by the judges exactly like how they are interpreted on a stage performance.

Nor were they intended to be, given the way the criteria are written.

Do you think, gkelly, with your expertized views, that the judges should give away this way of judging, and go with the more generic interpretation on PE, CH, and IN?

If the answer is no, then there is only one way to overcome this conflict - to educate the public. In the meantime, it's equally important that the public should be willing to be educated.

This question is very interesting to me.

In general I am very much in favor of educating the public in a variety of ways, starting with TV commentators who discuss skating skills with as much rigor as they analyze jumps, in an objective, balanced manner.

I think that there are ways of looking at performance that judges, and the people who write the official criteria, could learn from nonskaters who have a lot of experience with performing arts, as practitioners, trained critics/theorists, and spectators.

So I do think skating and skating judging would benefit from more public dialogue rather than keeping the decisions within a closed judging community. I'd like to brainstorm about possible ways to do this, in both directions.

But I don't think that a rubric that ignores skating technique in favor of only things everyone can see, e.g., "no falls is always better than any falls," would be appropriate.

I think I would rather see two program components instead of five. I think that Performance and Execution, Choreography and Composition, and Interpretation are so intertwined that it seems foolish to do the same thing three times.

Similarly with Skating Skills and Transitions.If you have good skating skills but don't display those skills in in-between moves, then what are the judges scoring? (It is interesting to me that Transitions are almost always the lowest of the five component scores, for every skater across the board. I think it is because this mark is the most objective of the five.)

But now, on the issue of whether good Skating Skills should automatically guarantee good performance components, I think that is more true of "skating skills" with a small S than with Skating Skills as defined by the IJS bullets. Obviously you have to be able to skate well in order to carry out your choreography and to interpret the music. but you also have to able to skate well to execute a triple flip.

If "Skating Skills" meant "skating skills," then that would be the only score that would be required -- whoever skates the best wins.

That is true.[That a skater can be so far ahead after the short program that he/she can't be overtaken.]

It is also true that a skater can win from 4th or 6th or 7th place without worrying about what order the other skaters she beats finish the long program in -- if she beats the short program leader in the long program by more than the leader beat her in the short, then she wins.

Actually, the difference between factored placements and add-up-the-points may not be as extreme as it seems intuitively (to me). Here are the results using factored placements for the mens and ladies at 2013 worlds.

The names are listed in the order in which they finished under CoP scoring. Lowest factored placement wins under 6.0.

So besides two ties, there is perfect agreement between the two scoring systems except for Chan versus Ten.

The fact that former tends to happen more often than the latter indicates that the balance between points available in the short and points available in the long is not currently calibrated to make the long program worth more. I think the main reason because although there are more opportunities to make mistakes in the long program, there are also more opportunities to make up for them with other skills.

In addition to the number of points available, I think there is a greater spread in points from best to worst in the short program than in the long. A mistake on a jump in the short program is very costly, relative to the skaters who go clean.. And I think, although I have not examined this statistically, that the judges are more likely to mark skaters down in program components in the SP for technically flawed performances.

As for total amount of points available, her is how it worked out for the top ten men in aggregate.

So the PCS are following the 2 to 1 ratio between LP and SP pretty well, but there are definitely extra points available on the technical side in the short program.

In itself, I don't know whether that's good or bad. Psychologically, if I were in second place after the short because the other guy nailed his quad toe/triole toe, his triple Axel, and his triple Lutz out of steps, I would have no beef. But if we were even in tech and the judges gave the other guy an insurmountable 7 point advantage because he was oh so pretty and musical, that would make me mad (even if he really was oh so pretty and musical. (Give him a two-point advantage and let me fight for it in the LP.)

In general I am very much in favor of educating the public in a variety of ways, starting with TV commentators who discuss skating skills with as much rigor as they analyze jumps, in an objective, balanced manner.

That would be very cool, to try to educate the public as to what constitutes good skating. It would certainly add to the viewers enjoyment and perhaps get them to see that it's not all about the jumps.

Dick Button did this as a commentator. He was constantly pointing out whether a skater had a good free leg position on her layback, whether she was low enough and had a straight back on her sit-spin, whether her speed was up to par, and even whether she was projecting to the audience. To that, it would be great to add detail about what steps and turns skaters were doing, both in their footwork sequences and throughout the program.

Educating people about skating is great. That is not the same as trying to educate them about the scoring system. That's not nearly so interesting or important, IMHO.